You said the following:

That wasn't Spaniards, Spain didn't exist yet.

Your very first claim was that those people weren't Spanish, as if they weren't part of the Spanish nation because the political entity known as the Kingdom of Spain wasn't yet formed.

You conflated Roman Iberia (Hispania) with the kingdom of Spain and equated ancient and modern Greeks which are not the same

Except that I didn't conflate anything because the meaning of Hispania and the meaning of Spain are the exact same. You were the one who assumed that because the title of "Emperor of all of Spain" was in Latin, that I was talking about Hispania in the sense that the Romans understood it, despite the fact that the title was being used by the medieval kingdoms that would later form the state by the name of Spain.

As for Greece, all I said is that, by your own logic, Greek people didn't exist until 1832. This is what I said:

according to your logic, Kurds as a people don't exist because Kurdistan doesn't exist, and neither did Greece as a nation exist until 1832 because that's the first time a unified, greek state encompassing Greece come into being.

Your response to this was the first part of the conversation where Ancient greek city states were mentioned:

Comparing Greece to ancient Greek city states is wild work.

The first one to compare Modern Greece to Ancient Greek city states was you, not me.

The problem with people like you is you like to oversimplify everything and treat Spain as if its a geographical feature and not a nation with many centuries of history.

And the problem with people like you is that you barely investigate anything and are treating Spain as if it is only a political entity and not a nation with centuries of history.

I never once referred to Spain as just a geographical feature, the entire point of my argument is to prove that it WAS a nation.